> On Aug 20, 2025, at 7:03 AM, Gleb Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:20 PM Matteo Riondato <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2025, at 6:15 AM, Gleb Popov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:48 PM Matteo Riondato <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It’s unclear (to me) whether that’s the *correct* way, or the
>>>> *recommended* way (pkg(8) calls it “a common idiom”), and in either case
>>>> *why* is that the recommended/correct way: what breaks if one modifies
>>>> /etc/FreeBSD.conf ? Why does it break?
>>>
>>> The /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file comes from base (some pkgbase package
>>> or as a result of make installworld or something like that). This
>>> means that system upgrades must handle edits to this file somehow -
>>> either by overwriting your changes with vanilla version or by merging
>>> them, which can't be done 100% automatically.
>>
>> This is true for so many files under /etc, and we have a solution with
>> etcupdate (indeed, not 100% automatically, but widely accepted).
>
> There is no etcupdate involved with binary package upgrades. But there
> is still a 3-way merge, yes, but like you said, it is not 100%
> automatic. So why not avoid the possibility of a merge conflict if we
> can do that?
I see that point, and in general it’s a good goal.
I would be way more comfortable with the idea that the contents of
/etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf should not be changed if the file lived in /etc/defaults
(e.g., /etc/defaults/FreeBSD-pkg.conf or FreeBSD-repos.conf), or had some
“default” in its name/path (e.g., /etc/pkg/FreeBSD-repos-defaults.conf (but I
would prefer /etc/defaults/FreeBSD-repos.conf)).
Thanks,
Matteo
